JUDGMENT : MIR ALFAZ ALI, J. None appeared for both the sides on call. Since the matter is pending for last 9 years, I propose to decide the matter on merit. 2. This revision is directed against the judgment and order dated 12.12.2007 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Guwahti in Crl. Appeal No. 45/2007 whereby dismissing the appeal and upholding the judgment of conviction of the accused and sentencing him to SI for 1 year and to pay compensation of Rs. 1,00,000. 3. As per the prosecution case, the revision petitioner and the respondent were in friendly terms and the revision petitioner obtained a loan of Rs. 75,000/- and in order to repay the said load, he issued two cheques being cheque No. 094299 for an amount of Rs. 50,000/- and cheque No. 093469 for an amount of Rs. 25,000/-. The respondent complainant presented the cheque for encashment which were dishonored. Thereafter he issued notice as per requirement of Section 138 NI Act and when the revision petitioner failed to make any payment within 15 days of the receipt of such notice, the complaint was lodged. 4. In course of trial, the complainant examined himself and two other witnesses, who have supported the prosecution case and on appreciation of evidence, learned magistrate convicted the revision petitioner under Section 138 NI Act and awarded sentence as indicated above. The revision petitioner preferred an appeal and the learned Sessions Judge by the impugned judgment and order dismissed the appeal and affirmed the conviction and sentence awarded by the learned trial Court. 5. Aggrieved by the impugned judgment, the revision petitioner preferred the instant appeal. 6. From the grounds taken in the revision petition, it appears that that only question that has been raised in this revision petition is whether the notice under clause (b) of the proviso to section 138 NI Act was received by the revision petitioner or not. It has been contended in the petition that no such notice under clause (b) of the proviso to Section 138 NI Act was received and therefore, the conviction and sentence was illegal and improper. 7. Pw-3 stated categorically in his evidence that notice was sent by Registered Post with A/D, the copy of which has been proved as exhibit-11. The postal receipt has been proved as exhibit-14. 7. Pw-3 stated categorically in his evidence that notice was sent by Registered Post with A/D, the copy of which has been proved as exhibit-11. The postal receipt has been proved as exhibit-14. It has also been stated by this witness, that as the AD card was not received, his counsel wrote a letter to the postmaster enquiring about the delivery of the notice and the postmaster has issued certificate, which has been proved as exhibit-15(1), showing that the letter was delivered to the addressee on 09.10.2004. Therefore, oral testimony of Pw-3 together with the documentary evidence, exhibit-13, exhibit-14 and exhibit-15 clearly establishes that notice was served on the revision petitioner on 09.10.2004. No rebuttal evidence was adduced by the revision petitioner to controvert the above evidence with regard to service of notice. Learned Sessions Judge is also found to have discussed this issue and appreciating the evidence came to finding that notice was duly served on the revision petitioner on 09.10.2004. When the specific plea of the revision petitioner was that notice was not received and the complainant adduced evidence to prove the sending as well as receipt of the notice by the revision petitioner burden necessarily shifted to the revision petitioner, to rebut such evidence, but no such rebuttal evidence was adduced. In the face of such evidence, the finding of the learned Sessions Judge affirming the conviction and sentence of the revision petitioner, in my view, has not suffered from any illegality or impropriety warranting interference by this Court. 8. Being of the above view, I find this revision petition devoid of merit and accordingly dismissed. 9. Send back the LCR.